Today, conservatism is experiencing a crisis on a global scale: Trumpists in America are trying to replace it with populism, and Russians want to appropriate it to disguise Putin’s fascism. We must fight for true conservatism without populism and fascism.

The Republican Party in the United States is increasingly being labeled as populist, and conservatives who have always advocated a strong foreign policy and defense of democracy around the world are now talking about saving money for peace. While Republican presidents Truman, Reagan, and both Bush considered strengthening the US position in the world to be the key to success, today’s conservative publics in the US are seized by a sudden bout of greed.

Despite the fact that the Republicans have always been the main hawks in American politics, Trump suddenly began to appeal to the interests and pockets of ordinary Americans. The Republican Party, which had voted with both hands for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, suddenly began to count how much American taxpayers were spending to help Ukraine. American conservative publics are filled with information about how much of their tax dollars a Texas farmer spends to support Ukraine. A party that has spent about $1.6 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks suddenly begins to regret spending 60 billion to defend a democratic ally against the United States’ main geopolitical enemy. And this is despite the fact that the lion’s share of these funds will remain in the United States and will be used to revitalize American industry.

The delay in American aid to Ukraine and Trump’s statements that he would not defend European allies and would even encourage Russia to attack them if they did not pay their bills showed a high level of geopolitical irresponsibility among American conservatives.

Another threat to global conservatism is Putin’s fascism, which has recently decided to call itself “conservatism” as well. The Russian dictator has launched a propaganda campaign in which he presents himself as a “defender” of traditional values who opposes liberal immorality. Worst of all, even reputable conservative influencers have begun to fall for this absurd propaganda.

Jordan Peterson, a popular conservative philosopher who has been called an “icon of conservatism,” has recently been disgraced by pro-Russian narratives. Peterson criticized racial and gender quotas and defended the classic conservative values of Western civilization. And then he suddenly began to see “defenders of spirituality” among Asian dictatorships. Peterson stooped to voicing Russian fascist propaganda messages that “Russia has its own sphere of influence” and nuclear weapons, so, according to the philosopher, “the West should respect this.” It is quite possible that Peterson’s views were influenced by Russian intelligence work. Inexplicably, the Canadian professor of psychology suddenly decided to improve his health and be treated for depression in Moscow and Belgrade (Serbia) with the use of psychoactive substances. But Moscow managed to use one of the most famous conservative philosophers to its advantage.

Today, the only strongholds of conservatism as an ideology of defending human freedom and constructive values are the British Conservatives and the Christian democratic forces of continental Europe. After all, the criterion of true conservatism is true commitment to Christian and humanistic principles. Conservatism is about freedom, dignity, and respect for human beings and society, not about zones of imperial influence and nuclear blackmail by bloody dictators.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

One of the truths of Christianity is “mercy” and this is the basis for one of the most important principles of solidarity in a Christian democracy. Solidarity, or as it used to be called, “brotherhood,” means mutual assistance and understanding among members of a society or community. For Christian democrats, cooperation and solidarity are prerequisites for achieving the common good and peace.

Solidarity is defined by Christian democrats as the main means of combating injustice and inequality and can be expressed in the short “Musketeer” motto “One for all and all for one.” Thanks to the introduction of the principle of social solidarity in the twentieth century, social guarantees for the general population in Europe have significantly improved: pension insurance, health insurance, unemployment insurance, and social assistance systems have been introduced.

Solidarity as a political principle is inherent in many other competing ideologies, including social democrats and communists. However, in the communist version, solidarity is understood as the unity of the working class and the ruling party in the class struggle with other social groups. The Christian democratic interpretation of solidarity, on the other hand, is much more humanistic and embraces all social groups in society, both rich and poor, and in a globalized world, other peoples and nations.

Christian democracy, unlike social democracy and communism, does not emphasize class differences in society, believing that a worldview in class categories only hinders rather than promotes social integration. In addition, Christian democrats differ from conservatives, who are more inclined to value and economic individualism, by the presence of the principle of solidarity. The ideology of Christian democracy, while sharing common views with conservatives on church, family, private property, anti-communism, and limiting the role of the state, is convinced that only the establishment of solidarity that covers all social strata, including the solidarity of the rich with the poor, will make it possible to fully develop society and improve social conditions without excessive idealization of capitalism.

Even Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Rerum Novarum, which played a key role in shaping Christian democratic doctrine, pays key attention to the problem of combating social inequality: “…It is necessary to come to the aid of people from the poorest strata immediately, since a significant part of them are in conditions unworthy of a human being. Both institutions and legislation began to move away from the Christian spirit, and it happened that the labor force was gradually left alone, defenseless, face to face with the inhumanity of the masters and the greed of the owners. Greed, covetousness, and usury, so many times condemned by the Church, continued to exist under a different guise. Let us add to this the monopoly of production and trade, which has reached such a degree that a handful of rich people have imposed a yoke on the many proletarians that is no different from a slave’s.” That is why most Christian democratic parties in Europe have strong trade union wings, and the European People’s Party, an association of Christian democratic parties in the European Union, actively supports EU social programs.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

Some conspiracy theorists groundlessly claim that Christian democracy, as one of the most influential ideologies in Europe, was a project of the “all-powerful Vatican,” which allegedly still retains its political influence. Although one look at the Pope’s current influence in Europe, particularly in the Russian-Ukrainian war, is enough to understand that this is absolutely not the case, it is worth debunking the bizarre fake about Christian democracy in more detail.

Some may wish that the Vatican’s secret intelligence services, Opus Dei, and the Knights of the Cloak and Dagger would try to influence the political situation in Christian countries, but the growing influence of liberalism, LGBT pride, the displacement of Christian ethics, and the spread of gender ideology in the education system prove otherwise.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, there were numerous Christian parties in Europe, but after World War II, the Christian Democrats that replaced them were in no way dependent on the will of the church. They became political associations that supported Christian values in politics, but were in no way subordinate to the church.

Moreover, numerous Christian democratic parties in the Netherlands and Sweden are Protestant and are not dependent on Rome. The CDU in Germany is an interdenominational party with a significant share of German Protestants, which also deprived the party of the opportunity to look back at the policies of the Roman Curia. Does anyone seriously think that, for example, Angela Merkel somehow subordinated her activities to the Holy See?

Beginning in the second half of the twentieth century, the Vatican began to reject the idea of a Catholic political party. Despite the wishes of some of the public, the Vatican decided that such a party would contradict the basic premise of Catholicism, which is that worldly political decisions are not covered by the deposit of Faith. Therefore, no political line, including the Christian democratic line, is representative of the Faith. Therefore, there is no subordination of Christian democratic parties to church structures. The church itself opposes its own interference in politics, trying to remain a moral authority for society.

All modern Christian democratic parties are associations of concerned citizens who want to bring Christian values to politics – goodness, mercy, respect for human dignity, because man is created in the likeness of God. The integration of these values into politics, according to Christian democrats, can make politics and government better, more humane, caring, and honest.

The construction of a successful welfare state in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, etc. shows that Christian democrats are able to build states on the Christian principles of brotherhood, humanism, and civil mutual aid.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

Today, we all see that Ukraine and the European Union are at different stages of their economic, social, and ultimately civilizational development. Today, the EU looks well-fed and self-satisfied, and the lives of its citizens are quite predictable, measured, and secure. Life in Ukraine is quite different: Ukrainians are often forced to fight for their survival, often both with their government and with the invader, because part of Ukraine’s territory is occupied by Russia, and there is a war on another part of the territory. Ukraine is only at the beginning of its national and state formation, forced to go through what other nations have been going through for decades or even centuries at an accelerated pace.

In other words, it can be argued that the situation in the EU and Ukraine is quite different. While the EU is trying to preserve the existing order, Ukraine is facing the question of radical reforms of social life; while EU citizens are thinking about how to better protect themselves from hordes of migrants or other threats from outside, Ukrainians are thinking about how to survive and vice versa – to go to foreign lands to work in order to give their families prospects.

While most European countries are reliably protected by NATO’s collective security treaty, Ukrainians are forced to fear another external aggression from Russia. While European countries increase spending on social needs and decrease spending on defense, Ukraine, being one of the poorest countries on the European continent, is forced to increase its defense spending in the face of the Russian threat.

At the same time, we were interested in the experience of European Christian democracy, which revived the European countries destroyed by World War II and gave them the future they live in today. We are not afraid to say that, in fact, Christian democracy has become the cornerstone ideology for the creation of a new European renaissance and the creation of a prosperous and developed united Europe. Christian democrats directly or indirectly contributed to the revival and powerful development of Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, and a number of other countries. Throughout the previous chapters of this book, we have shown who, when, and with what ideas contributed to European formation and revival. We believe that these ideas can be interesting guidelines for the Ukrainian reader, as well as that modern Europe should turn to their sources, critically evaluate the current state of affairs, and once again think about the usefulness of the advice given by Christian democracy for solving certain problems of European society.

It is clear that Christian democracy in the postwar years was very different from Christian democracy 70 years later. Having become the European mainstream, Christian democratic parties also became largely post-ideological catch-all political entities that had to respond to the postmodern situation, in which values and truths lost their usual meaning, everything was devalued, mixed with the opposite and acquired a different meaning.

It is clear that today the ideas of Christian democracy for Ukraine, on the one hand, and for the EU, on the other, can be read and interpreted differently, and are characterized by different challenges and problems. For Ukrainian realities, the old post-war Christian democracy of Adenauer-Schuman-de Gasperi will probably be closer to the old post-war Christian democracy, in which the primary tasks were to pull countries out of the abyss of post-war destruction, destroyed economies and means of production, mass unemployment, and the threat of external interference, primarily from the communist camp. For Ukraine, the picture is quite similar, if not in detail, then in general.

However, the ideas of Christian democracy still remain relevant for today’s Europe, which is full of contradictions, antagonism, not always fair competition, voter disappointment in politicians and politics, etc. Christian democracy offers a certain middle way or a kind of fusion in the economic sphere, where the development of private property is a driver of growth of social guarantees, which, in turn, should help people become independent and self-sufficient, i.e., provide education, a trade or profession, teach them to cope in society, but not to be eternal dependents of the budget. On the other hand, Christian democracy is an inoculation against radical left-wing or right-wing ideologies that propose to build a new society either on the basis of class struggle, or on the basis of racial and blood unity, or even property differentiation. Christian democracy rejects both of these approaches and asserts its own, which goes hand in hand with such ideas as freedom, solidarity, and subsidiarity, where individual freedom is postulated as something that is consistent with the freedom of others, and imposes a certain solidarity of responsibility for the fate of others and the community as a whole, but at the same time divides competencies and power so that they are subsidiary, that is, closest to solving the problems of a particular person.

It is clear that today in the EU, Christian democracy has become rather vague politically, moving to the center and trying to capture undecided moderate voters who are focused on stability, development, and competence of politicians. Other political players, including social democrats and liberals, are using similar strategies. Therefore, many observers argue that modern mainstream parties have become so close to each other that their visions and programs differ little.

Nevertheless, today we can identify the theory and practice that has become characteristic of Christian democratic parties in Europe.

Author: Yuriy Mindyuk